There are two reasons for using this case. First is to introduce students to the “You Be the Judge” feature. There is one such case in almost every chapter. The text provides the facts and issue and then, in place of the court’s holding, gives competing arguments for the two sides. The text’s authors wrote the arguments, often based on majority and/or dissenting opinions in the case. Since students do not have the “answer,” they are forced to think for themselves.

An instructor can use these cases in many ways:

Divide the class in two and assign each side to argue for one of the parties. 

Have studentsvote on the outcome before and after revealing the court’s holding. 

Require students to prepare a short paper giving their own “holding.”

Have one or two students argue each side before the “court” (the professor and remaining students).

The second reason for using this case is that it builds on the issue of negligence introduced in the Kuehn v Pub Zonecase, above.This time, the court confronts not only the question of whether a duty is owed, but also whether the injury was foreseeable. 

Facts:It was late night at the Del Lago hotel bar. Bradley Smith and 40 of his closest fraternity brothers had been partying there for hours. Around midnight, guests from a wedding party made a rowdy entrance. One of Smith’s friends brashly hit on a young woman in the wedding party, infuriating her date. Verbal confrontations ensued. Forthe next 90 minutes, the fraternity members and the wedding party exchanged escalating curses and threats, while the bartender looked on and served drinks. Until… the inevitable occurred. Punches were thrown. Before Smith knew it, someone placed him in a headlock and threw him against a wall.

As dozens fought, the bar manager fumbled to call hotel security, but realized he did not even have the phone number. When security eventually arrived, the free-for-all had ended … and Smith had suffered a fractured skull, among other serious injuries.

Smith sued Del Lago for negligence. He argued that the hotel was liable because it knew that the brawl was imminent and could have easily prevented it by calling security or ejecting theangry drunks. The lower court agreed. The hotel appealed.

1. You Be the Judge:Did the hotel have a duty to protect Smith from imminent assault?

2. Did the hotel owe a duty to the patron who was injured?

3. How did it breach this duty?

4. What is the key issue in this civil suit?

5. What factors impose a duty of care upon such an establishment?

6. Did the hotel breach its duty?